Why is the staffing of the educational institution considered differently? Why do teachers believe they should not have their job performance reviewed and rated? Is this an extension of the system that removed letter grading for their students? What teacher would be happy receiving a "C" on their performance review? This Globe writer says "it's not clear yet if the state would benefit from a ....ballot initiative". In past years local boards of education operated without budgetary restrictions. Citizen taxpayers had no say and just went along for the ride. Now, we're being told again to leave it to the state Board of Teachers. Get your hands off the rudder, citizens. It is inconceivable that citizens should be relegated once again to being told they should leave everything to any board of education - local or state. Putting teachers into a transparent, citizen controlled evaluation system may be the only way education of our children will be rid of incompetent, but seniority protected teachers. Move now to change this monolithic, immovable system.

The pendulum swings again, this time to a formal recognition of the factory model as the standard. No more Master level teachers. You can learn to be a teacher by going to a six week course, not really much more to it than learning how to work at Jiffy Lube. The teacher as technician. Kids sit in neat rows and "teachers" regurgitate scripted curriculum for maximum bubble efficiency!! That's the goal of the initiative! After all, teaching is just like selling cars and manufacturing garden hoses.

Thank you BG for bring this to the readers attention. I think teaching is a very hard job and I respect teachers. In fact, I gave over $300 in cash(visa gift cards) to my kids teachers for Xmass. However, it is disgusting after 24 months of work you get tenure. In Mass, your chance of ever being fired is 1.9%!!!! That is insane! Imagine is your MD was guaranteed a life time job at the same office, no matter how terrible they were? They are given yearly contacts for a reason. Or a contractor who works on your home, after two weeks, is guaranteed tenure. No matter how bad of a job he does, his chances of being fired is 1.9%. Everyone can agree that these two examples are reckless and not in the best interested for the consumer. Yet, the teachers union thinks this model is good enough for our children and the taxpayers.

this ballot initiative, sponsored by Stand for Children", is designed as part of a movement to privatize and profit from education. Many teachers leave the profession or resign before being fired. This 1.9 percent figure is misleading. Teachers are tenured after 3 years and 1 day. That does not mean that they cannot be evaluated or fired. Many people see the teachers union as protecting bad teachers. This too is misleading. It is management's responsibility to evaluate and get rid of bad teachers, not the teachers union. Teachers do not want to work with incompetent teachers. It makes our jobs more difficult. The fact is management doesn't effectively use the evaluation system we already have in place is not the fault of teachers unions. And if you think that due process for teachers should be swept aside you are advocating a system that gives entirely too much power to principals (another difficult job). When confronted with budgetary decisions a principal will get rid of the more expensive employee, not necessarily the teacher who is incompetent. Again the message being advertised is that younger teachers are more competent than veterans. The opposite is nearly always true. Let's talk about the real motives behind this initiative: outsource experienced union teachers to cheaper inexperienced teachers in a move toward corporate privatization of public education. Not on my watch.

just an fyi, teachers had to sign off that they read an ethics bill, which says that they (along with other government employees) cannot accept gifts over 50 dollars. So unless the giftcards were spread out among 6 teachers they technically could get in hot water. Just a heads up.